Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 1 (of 31) Solving the SR-520 Problem prepared for UTRAN prepared by INSTEP LLC INtelligent Solutions for Transportation Engineering and Planning Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners CEE 416 / CEE 580 / URBPD

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 2 (of 31) Overview Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) Alternatives Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) Final Recommendation (Jun)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 3 (of 31) Overview Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) Alternatives Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) Recommendation (Jun)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 4 (of 31) Background: Current Problems Safety/reliability Congestion Public transit Environmental impacts Community connection

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 5 (of 31) Background: Safety/reliability

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 6 (of 31) Background: Congestion

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 7 (of 31) Public Transit Speed Connection Ridership Environmental impacts Runoff Noise Community connections Background: Other Concerns

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 8 (of 31) Background: Future needs Increase safety Congestion relief Public transit improvement Environmental mitigation

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 9 (of 31) Background: Goals To improve mobility for people and goods across SR 520 corridor in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost effective while minimizing impacts on affected neighborhoods and the environment

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 10 (of 31) Background: Objectives Phase one: rebuilding the bridge Phase Two: capacity expansion General purpose lane: LOS C HOV lane: LOS B Connections with other corridor runoff and noise level Are these phases or objectives?

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 11 (of 31) Overview Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) Alternatives Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) Recommendation (Jun)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 12 (of 31) Six-lane Alternative: Introduction

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 13 (of 31) Six-lane Alternative: Primary Benefits Congestion Relief Safety Environmental Mitigation Community Development

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 14 (of 31) Six-lane Alternative: Environmental Impacts and Constraints Wetlands Noise Pollution

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 15 (of 31) Six-lane Alternative: Public Opinion What does the public want? Roadway Capacity vs. Mass Transit? Toll Concerns Environmental Concerns

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 16 (of 31) Six-lane Alternative: Administrative/ Organization Impacts, Concerns, and Issues Implementation of tolls Metro/ Sound Transit

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 17 (of 31) Overview Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) Alternatives Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) Recommendation (Jun)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 18 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative : Introduction Similar to basic six lane alternative Adds light rail on opposite side as pedestrian/bikeway Terminals on both sides of Lake University Hub of Sound Transit (near Husky Stadium) SR-520/I-405 interchange Variable tolling method/rates RFID Automated coin counter

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 19 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Primary Benefits Increased Congestion Relief Increased capacity for vehicles Dedicated transit for passengers Increased Safety Added shoulders Increased Environmental Mitigation Surface runoff treatment Increased Community Development “Smart Growth” near transit hub Increased Reliability Light rail will not be subject to delays

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 20 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Environmental Impacts and Constraints Wetlands Six-lane construction will impact wetlands on both sides of the Lake Will require mitigation (construction of new wetlands elsewhere) to comply with Federal regulations Noise Pollution Increased traffic will cause more noise May include a cap to reduce noise for North Capitol Hill

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 21 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Public Opinion Better than a compromise Provides increased roadway capacity Provides increased transit capacity & reliability Toll Concerns Legalities of RFID and license plate photos must be addressed Not specifically prohibited under RCW, but likely to be challenged Environmental Concerns Local Neighborhoods Affected Montlake, University, Laurelhurst Eastside (Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, Kirkland)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 22 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Administrative/ Organization Impacts, Concerns, and Issues Same issues as basic six-lane alternative Implementation of tolls Metro/ Sound Transit Requires integration with Sound Transit SR-520 light rail will share station with Sound Transit at Husky Stadium

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 23 (of 31) Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Applicable/Likely Funding Mechanisms Costs (high estimate): $3.4 billion Basic six-lane alternative cost: $2.90 billion Light rail:$0.39 billion RFID, cameras, software, etc:$20 million RFID, etc. transaction costs:$7.1million Revenues Tolls (calculated at current volume): 115,000 v/d * $4.00/crossing * 365 d/y *20 y = $3.275 B 2005 Gas Tax $500 K Does not require additional taxes

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 24 (of 31) Overview Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) Alternatives Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) Recommendation (Jun)

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 25 (of 31) Increase Transit Use: Plan Details Increase capacity of movement of people by increasing bus ridership Construct Large P&R at each end of SR-520 Encourage higher density and mixed use near P&R Create Incentives to take Transit Rebuild of SR-520 using 4 Lane Plan outlined by WSDOT Create Dis-incentives to take SOV ??

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 26 (of 31) Increase Transit Use: Primary Benefits Buses move 30% more people using 1% of vehicles Congestion Reduction Pollution Reduction P&R costs are lower than capacity increase costs ??

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 27 (of 31) Increase Transit Use: Public Opinion Low approval ratings for transit (Sound Transit = 55%, King County Metro = 62%) Low current ridership (4.4% of commuters use transit across US) 19% of people view Puget Sound as more transit as most important issue Source?

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 28 (of 31) Increase Transit Use: Major concerns Can ridership be increased? Is added capacity for movement of people enough to offset growth/congestion in region? Will a plan that does not increase roadway capacity be accepted by voters?

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 29 (of 31) Increase Transit Use: Funding Sources Gas Tax, Nickel Funding Vehicle Tax increases Parking taxes

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 30 (of 31) Final Recommendation Six-lane + Transit Alternative

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners Benefit Increased Congestion Relief Increased Safety Increased Environmental Mitigation Increased Community Development Increased Reliability Concern Environmental Impact on Wetland Noise Pollution Tolling Issues Impact on Local Neighborhood

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners Comparison Vs. Basic Multi-Lane Alternative Vs. Increase Transit

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners Financing Estimated Cost of the Project = $3.4 billion Revenue from Tolling = $3.275 billion Gas Tax = $500k

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners Implementation Strategy Get all the necessary Data/prediction Get EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Inform and get feedback from decision makers and public Get political and public acceptance/support Get initial financing Construction Enforcement

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners Organization and Political Buy-In Metro University of Washington Political Party Who's Against putting RFID tag for Privacy issue WSDOT

Solving the SR-520 Problem © 2005 Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, ShinnersSlide 31 (of 31) Questions? INSTEP LLC INtelligent Solutions for Transportation Engineering and Planning